Uradni propagandni spot britanske kraljeve mornarice

Ta zaplet okrog evropskega posojila Ukrajini kaže, če tukaj izpustimo vidike (ne)legalnosti predlaganega mehanizma in posledic za globalni finančni položaj evro območja, zelo jasno tri stvari:

Prvič, EU države niso sposobne financirati Ukrajine naslednji dve leti iz svojih tekočioh sredstev, zato se Evropska komisija zateka k pravno nevzdržnim rešitvam glede uporabe začasno zadržanih ruskih monetarnih sredstev pri Euroclear kot zastave (collateral) za posojilo. Po načrtu Komisije, Ukrajina naj ne bi nikoli vrnila sredstev, pač pa bi se posojilo odplačalo iz vojnih reparacij Rusije Ukrajini. Vendar bi za uresničitev tega načrta morala Rusija to vojno izgubiti, nakar bi ji moral mednarodni tribunal naložiti kazen (plačilo vojne škode oziroma reparacij).

Drugič, Belgija, kjer ima Euroclear sedež, ne verjame, da bi Rusija lahko to vojno v Ukrajini izgubila, zato se upravičeno boji, da bi Rusija po vojni iztožila ta sredstva, pokriti pa bi jih morala Belgija. Glejte spodnji intervju z belgijskim predsednikom vlade, ki je brez dlake na jeziku to povedal in hkrati omenil še vse druge možne negativne posledice za Belgijo (vir):

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever: Russia has threatened that Belgium will “feel this until the end of eternity” if it confiscates frozen Russian assets.

• De Wever: This could involve counter-seizures of Belgian factories in Russia, lawsuits in Russian courts, and similar risks for other EU countries.

• He regards it as an illusion that Russia will lose the war and voluntarily return the assets:

• “Russia will never lose this war. Moreover, it is not even desirable for a nuclear-armed country to lose a war and become completely unstable. That is not in our interest either.”

• Confiscation of assets should only be considered after the war is over, and only from the state that has lost the war — but, in his opinion, Russia will not be that state.

Tretjič, Belgija je zavrnila možnost uporabe teh sredstev oziroma postavila pogoj, da vse ostale članice sorazmerno nosijo to tveganje neplačila posojila s strani Ukrajine. Ostale članice EU so zavrnile to belgijsko zahtevo, kar efektivno pomeni, da tudi ostale države EU ne verjamejo, da bi Rusija lahko izgubila to vojno v Ukrajini (in ne želijo nase prevzeti tveganja poplačila tega posojila).

No, in če nihče v EU ne verjame, da bi Ukrajina lahko zmagala (oziroma Rusija izgubila), se odpira logično vprašanje: zakaj torej želi vodstvo Komisije in nekaj predsednikov vlad še naprej podpihovati nadaljevanje vojne v Ukrajini, če pa to ne samo, da ne vodi k zmagi, ampak samo še povečuje stopnjo uničenja Ukrajine? Z vsakim mesecem nadaljevanja vojne bo Ukrajina geografsko manjša, bolj porušena in imela manj moških, ki bi lahko sodelovali pri obnovi in gospodarskem okrevanju Ukrajine. Zakaj evropski politiki raje ne stavijo na mir in teh 140 milijard evrov, ki bi šlo za nakup orožja za nadaljevanje vojne, raje ne namenijo za obnovo Ukrajine po sklenitvi miru? (kjer bi lahko evropska podjetja sodelovala pri obnovi, medtem ko pri nakupu orožja gre skoraj v celoti za ameriško orožje)

Zakaj želijo evropski politiki še bolj uničiti Ukrajino, namesto da bi ji pomagali k čimprejšnjemu začetku obnove in gospodarskemu okrevanju? Ja, zakaj si evropski politiki tako zelo želijo Ukrajino še bolj uničiti?

V čem je smisel tega nesmisla?

On 1 December 2025, I was on “Piers Morgan Uncensored” talking about the April 2006 email correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz and how that related to Dershowitz’s efforts to smear me and Steve Walt in 2006, when our famous article on the Israel lobby had just come out in the London Review of Books. His efforts were part of a broader campaign to discredit us and seriously damage if not ruin our academic careers. Of course, we now know that Epstein was closely involved with Dershowitz in that smear campaign.

Dershowitz watched my interview with Piers and then they did a followup interview. It is amazing to me, given the viciousness of Dershowitz’s attacks on me and Steve in 2006 and afterwards, to hear him now describe himself as merely engaging in a rational-legal academic debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. It struck me that Dershowitz’s response shows how much has changed since 2006 in terms of the lobby’s position (and Israel’s) in our public discourse. Dershowitz was clearly on the defensive in his interview with Piers, which is a stunning transformation for someone who in the past ferociously attacked anyone who criticized Israel in the slightest way.

You can have cheap, dependable electricity to encourage economic growth and prosperity, or you can have a grid supported by wind and solar energy. Europe chose the latter.

So far, the promise of “abundant solar and wind energy” has only succeeded at one thing: slashing carbon emissions by 30% from 2005 levels. Thankfully, food for European families is paid for by reducing greenhouse gases, right?

Unfortunately, the emission reduction is the only benefit to be had by Europe’s current plan of destroying dependable coal and nuclear plants in favor of building unpredictable and unreliable wind and solar energy infrastructure. Here is the WSJ with the damning facts: 

“Germany now has the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world, while the U.K. has the highest industrial electricity rates, according to a basket of 28 major economies analyzed by the International Energy Agency. Italy isn’t far behind. Average electricity prices for heavy industries in the European Union remain roughly twice those in the U.S. and 50% above China.”

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Avtor članka v Foreign Policy je nekdanji zunanji minister Litve, kar samo govori o tem, v kakšnem paralelnem svetu, popolnoma ločenem od realnosti, živi del evropske politike. Na drugi strani pa tudi, s kako slabimi analitiki imamo opravka. Če evropska politika operira s tovrstnimi “analizami”, potem je seveda absolutno jasno, zakaj je EU danes na tem stranskem tiru, na katerem se je znašla.

Why China Cannot Play “Kissinger” With Europe, using Russia to peel Europe from the US

The recent Foreign Policy article suggests Beijing missed a “Kissinger moment” by siding with Moscow instead of prying Europe away from Washington. This framing reflects a persistent Western illusion: that China can treat Russia as a disposable pawn in a balance-of-power game. In reality, China’s partnership with Russia is not a tactical choice but a structural necessity dictated by geography, resources, and the future of Eurasian integration.

Geography Matters: America vs. China

The United States enjoys the luxury of two oceans and two meek neighbors. This insulation allows Washington to gamble abroad without fear of destabilizing its homeland. China, by contrast, shares a vast border with Russia — a nuclear power and resource giant. Undermining Russia would destabilize China’s northern frontier, invite insecurity along thousands of kilometers of border, and expose Beijing to encirclement by the U.S. and its allies. For China, Russia is not a distant chess piece but a neighbor whose stability is inseparable from its own.

Russia as China’s Strategic Lifeline

Russia provides China with discounted energy, minerals, and food security. These flows are not optional luxuries; they are the backbone of China’s resilience against Western sanctions and maritime blockades. Severing ties with Moscow would force China to rely on sea lanes dominated by the U.S. Navy, leaving Beijing vulnerable to coercion. In addition, Russia’s Arctic coastline grants China access to the Northern Sea Route — a strategic corridor that shortens shipping to Europe and bypasses U.S.-controlled chokepoints. No Kissinger-style maneuver could compensate for the loss of this lifeline.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

S tem vprašanjem se ubadam že nekaj časa. Prišel sem do sklepa, da evropski interes po nadaljevanju vojne v Ukrajini in potenciranju strahu pred namišljeno grožnjo ruskega napada na Evropo temelji predvsem na strahu, da bi se v primeru miru ZDA pod Trumpom utegnile umakniti iz Evrope. Ven iz Nata. Proti Aziji, kjer se nahaja edini pravi konkurent Amerike za globalno dominacijo – Kitajska. Evropski politiki želijo ohraniti ZDA v Evropi zato, ker brez ameriške prisotnosti privid evropske moči in superiornosti razpade na koščke. Kakšno moč pa ima Evropa brez ameriških jedrskih raket? Brez ameriške vojaške podpore razpade vsa povojna fantazma glede EU kot globalne velesile. Brez ameriških raket v Evropi bi se morala EU na novo definirati kot vojaška sila. Kar pa je v tem nacionalnem miksu in institucionalni karikaturi EU-27 neizvedljivo. Zato se bodo evropske države do bridkega konca oklepale nadaljevanja vojne v Ukrajini in izpodbijale vsakršno možnost mirne rešitve vojne, ki ne vključuje popolnega poraza Rusije. Ker slednje ni možno, bodo evropske države pobijale vse mirovne pobude.

Evropske države nimajo strategije za mir v Ukrajini. Nimajo je niti za vojno. Želijo le, da se ta ne neha in da ne razpade fantazma Evrope kot velesile. Mirno rešitev vojne v Ukrajini vidijo kot simbolno kapitulacijo pred realnostjo, da se globalni red ne vrti več okoli Evrope.

Do podobnega sklepa je prišla Almut Rochowanski v (levičarskem, vendar dobrem) The Jacobian, ki pravi – če povzamem v enem stavku – da evropske elite vztrajajo pri vojni ne zaradi strahu pred ruskim napadom, temveč zaradi strahu pred izgubo lastnega globalnega statusa.

Spodaj je povzetek njenega (sicer zelo dolgega) eseja, generiran s pomočjo UI in mojega editiranja sloga.

Evropska politika se je po dveh letih vojne v Ukrajini znašla v paradoksalnem položaju: kljub utrujenosti javnosti, gospodarski škodi in nenehni politični napetosti se zdi, da evropski voditelji raje vzdržujejo stanje vojne, kot da bi iskali možnosti za mir. Rochowanska opozarja, da se je v evropskem političnem prostoru utrdilo prepričanje, da bi bila “hitro dosežena” mirna rešitev celo nevarna ali neprimerna, medtem ko se militarizacija ter govor o neizogibnem spopadu z Rusijo normalizirata. Vzporedno pa evropske elite kažejo izrazito nezaupanje do kakršnekoli pobude, ki ne prihaja iz njihovega kroga, kar se je drastično pokazalo ob ameriški mirovni pobudi, ki je Evropo ujela povsem nepripravljeno.

Ko je novica o ameriški mirovni iniciativi prišla v javnost, so evropski voditelji pokazali predvsem šok in tiho nezadovoljstvo – ne zaradi vsebine pobude, temveč zato, ker pri njej niso sodelovali. Še bolj boleča je bila izjava ameriškega uradnika, da jim “ni mar za Evropo v tej zadevi“, kar je razgalilo globoko asimetrijo moči v transatlantskih odnosih.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Drama in panika:

HE END OF NATO AS WE KNEW IT

Tomorrow, December 3, NATO foreign ministers gather in Brussels.

America’s seat will be empty.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is skipping the summit. First time in over two decades a U.S. Secretary of State has refused to attend.

But here is what no one is telling you:

Today, December 2, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff meets Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Read that again.

The day before NATO convenes to discuss European security, America is in Moscow negotiating directly with Russia. Without Europe. Without consultation. Without permission.

Who is Washington sending to Brussels instead? Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau. The same official who wrote “NATO is still a solution in search of a problem” before deleting the post.

The message could not be clearer.

Since 1949, NATO operated on one principle: collective decision-making. Thirty-two nations, one voice.

That architecture died this week.

The new hierarchy:

Track One: Washington and Moscow decide.

Track Two: Washington informs Kyiv.

Track Three: Europe learns what was agreed.

European diplomats are already complaining they have been “cut out” of Ukraine negotiations. The leaked 28-point peace plan was drafted by American and Russian negotiators. Brussels was not consulted.

America funds approximately 70% of NATO’s operational capacity. He who pays, dictates.

What happens next will define the next fifty years of global order.

Either Europe accepts its new role as a funding mechanism for American-designed security arrangements.

Or the Atlantic fractures.

There is no third option.

The post-1945 world order is being rewritten.

Not in Brussels.

In Moscow.

While NATO ministers wait in an empty room.

Vir

Realnost:

No. 1: ZDA pokrivajo skoraj 70 % vojaških izdatkov Nata. Torej v Natu in o Natu odločajo v Washingtonu. Če želijo EU države več glasovalnih pravic, morajo ne samo plačati več kot ZDA, pač pa tudi operativno prevzeti vodenje Nata (ne zgolj prek ameriške lutke iz EU na mestu generalnega sekretarja zveze)

No. 2. EU se je sama izločila iz pogajanj z Rusijo, ker se z njo sploh ni želela in se ne želi pogovarjati. Če se ne želiš pogovarjati z nasprotno stranjo, pač ne moreš jokati, da te ni za pogajalsko mizo.